PPP Appraisal Panel okays modernisation of New Delhi Rly Station;

Govt committed to improve infrastructure: Baalu;

CBEC clarifies on issues related to CNG manufacturers;

FM apologises for failure of welfare scheme; promises one lakh jobs for disabled persons in next six months;

oecd story.pdf

UK comes under heavy attack from OECD for failure to modernise legislation against bribery in international transactions;

rbi08cir025.pdf

Allocation of FII Investment between debt and equity;

mbuzz1075.pdf

PPP Appraisal Panel okays modernisation of New Delhi Rly Station;

mbuzz1074.pdf

DIT okays 27 State Data Centres for an outlay of Rs 1237 Cr;

mbuzz1073.pdf

Petro Secy moots formation of nodal agency for talent nurturing for oil sector;

2008-TIOL-496-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Rohini Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : May 16, 2008 )

Income – Accrual – Assessee following Mercantile system – Interest accrues as per agreement

Interest on mortgage loan accrued to assessee since it is following mercantile system of accounting. Uncertainty perceived in realization of interest income has to be cogent one. Addition of Rs. 52 lakhs upheld.

Assessee's appeal dismissed. : CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-495-ITAT-MAD.pdf

Shri Robert Foley Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : June 27, 2008 )

Amount paid to Trainer's welfare fund – Incurred for the purpose of business – held allowable deduction

Assessee is a race horse trainer. As per a scheme sponsored by Madras race Club for the benefit of all trainers under the club, one-half per cent of the winnings is debited and deposited in Trainer's Welfare Fund. AO held it to be not business expenditure. Tribunal held that on applying the test of commercial expediency it has the character of business expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

Appeal by assessee allowed. : CHENNAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular875.pdf

CBEC clarifies on issues related to CNG manufacturers;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1705-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Rhino Pipes Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: August 2July 30, 2008)

Central Excise – matter remanded in the first round to re-quantify the duty liability – however while re-quantifying, no benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) was given though specifically requested by the appellant – matter remanded again. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1701-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Indra Processors Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: July 14, 2008)

Central Excise – Evidence to show that refund claim is filed in time apparent on record – Commr (A) findings in this regard unjustified – Claim of unjust enrichment to be verified by lower authorities, decision of Tribunal in earlier order in appellant's own case followed :DELHI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1703-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Raaj Khosla & Co Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: July 14, 2008)

ST - Cenvat Credit - Credit denied as some of the invoices were found to be in the name of employees of the assessee and in few cases, address given in the invoices was not registered with the Revenue - assessee pleads that the registration certificate was later amended and the address was corrected - Credit cannot be denied : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1702-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Lawson Travel & Tours (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated: August 12, 2008)

Service tax – penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 – service tax due was paid before the issue of Show cause notice – penalty set aside. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff08_107.pdf

Duty exemption for imports from SAFTA countries;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1704-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + import story.pdf

M/s Prashray Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: August 28, 2008)

CE- condition of not availing CENVAT credit in exemption notification – whether applicable to imported goods – When the input is not dutiable in India there is no question of availing credit – CVD demand set aside. It has been established that, during the period of dispute, an Indian manufacturer of yarn or fabric would not have been required to claim CENVAT credit on his input. In other words, there was no question of such manufacturer availing input-duty credit, the input being not chargeable to duty of excise. In this view of the matter, the demand of CVD on the yarn and fabric imported by the appellants is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1700-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Guide Optical Co (Dated: August 18, 2008)

Customs – Valuation of imported goods – Allegation of undervaluation - Enhancement of value cannot be made arbitrarily on the ground that it done based on some market survey – Copy of market enquiry report never furnished to the respondent and no explanation as to how the values are arrived at – Order of Commissioner (Appeals) providing consequential relief to the appellant upheld : MUMBAI CESTAT;